3 ms·

There is some interaction between the bank and the credit agency taking place regarding sokoloff. I don't know the details of how they identify which sokoloff t

by mhb 4y ago

There is some interaction between the bank and the credit agency taking place regarding sokoloff. I don't know the details of how they identify which sokoloff they are discussing, but it doesn't seem particularly clever (DOB, last 4 of SSN?). Something in that interaction has led them to misidentify the person who wants money with the real sokoloff. Maybe it's the bank's fault. Maybe it's the credit agency's fault. It's not sokoloff's fault. If there is harm to sokoloff, in the future, by the credit agency representing that sokoloff's credit is not what it should be because the credit agency did a bad job authenticating an identity when the bank asked about it, it should be liable (and libel).

sokoloff 4y ago
If fake-sokoloff shows up to the bank, pretends to be sokoloff, the bank checks with the credit agency who says "yup, sokoloff is a good credit risk", and the bank gives fake-sokoloff money in part based on the premise that sokoloff is a good risk, I don't think the credit agency has done anything wrong there. The bank failed by authenticating fake-sokoloff as sokoloff. (I'm no fan of credit agencies, but I am a fan of correctly diagnosing system problems and assigning root cause to the right place in the system.) There is a second-order effect where it should be straightforward for sokoloff to repudiate a loan taken out by fake-sokoloff and incorrectly tagged to sokoloff. An agency failing to follow that process may then be liable of libel.
- mhb 4y ago
  There is a chain of authentication between fake-sokoloff and the credit agency. Maybe fake-sokoloff has tricked the bank due to the bank's weak security. Now the bank asks the credit agency for information about sokoloff by providing whatever weak metrics it has obtained. Both the bank and the credit agency have failed due to accepting weak metrics.
- mhb 4y ago
  Also, in future interactions, the credit agency makes representations to others about sokoloff's credit. Why should the standard of what they are able to say be set by the least secure report they have received from a bank? They hold themselves out to be a credit reporting company - not just an aggregator of hearsay.
- tjrDL6MjB2Zwwa 4y ago
  This is one of those things where fairness is less important. If real-sokoloff is hurt, someone fucked up and needs to be held accountable and make real-sokoloff whole. We can debate the how and the why, but the spirit of that sentence needs to be respected more highly than fairness to the bank or credit agency. Part of the reason they can be so Laissez Faire about it is because it's not their risk and they're not the ones that need to be made whole. Regardless of how it happens, it needs to happen. Making it their risk would convince them to figure it out.

by mhb 4y ago

sokoloff 4y ago

If fake-sokoloff shows up to the bank, pretends to be sokoloff, the bank checks with the credit agency who says "yup, sokoloff is a good credit risk", and the bank gives fake-sokoloff money in part based on the premise that sokoloff is a good risk, I don't think the credit agency has done anything wrong there. The bank failed by authenticating fake-sokoloff as sokoloff. (I'm no fan of credit agencies, but I am a fan of correctly diagnosing system problems and assigning root cause to the right place in the system.) There is a second-order effect where it should be straightforward for sokoloff to repudiate a loan taken out by fake-sokoloff and incorrectly tagged to sokoloff. An agency failing to follow that process may then be liable of libel.

mhb 4y ago
There is a chain of authentication between fake-sokoloff and the credit agency. Maybe fake-sokoloff has tricked the bank due to the bank's weak security. Now the bank asks the credit agency for information about sokoloff by providing whatever weak metrics it has obtained. Both the bank and the credit agency have failed due to accepting weak metrics.
mhb 4y ago
Also, in future interactions, the credit agency makes representations to others about sokoloff's credit. Why should the standard of what they are able to say be set by the least secure report they have received from a bank? They hold themselves out to be a credit reporting company - not just an aggregator of hearsay.
tjrDL6MjB2Zwwa 4y ago
This is one of those things where fairness is less important. If real-sokoloff is hurt, someone fucked up and needs to be held accountable and make real-sokoloff whole. We can debate the how and the why, but the spirit of that sentence needs to be respected more highly than fairness to the bank or credit agency. Part of the reason they can be so Laissez Faire about it is because it's not their risk and they're not the ones that need to be made whole. Regardless of how it happens, it needs to happen. Making it their risk would convince them to figure it out.